Official Fujinon XF 10-24mm F/4 Image Samples

The rate at which Fujifilm X-mount compact camera system is growing is simply remarkable. I admit, I am very drawn to the system and really like what Fujifilm is doing (thus pardon any subjectivity that might creep in at times). To think that it was launched such a little while ago and yet already has such a versatile selection of cameras and lenses, it is beyond what we’re used to seeing in modern digital camera market. The two most recent Fujinon lenses – the XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS and XF 56mm f/1.2 R – filled in what was arguably the biggest gaps in the system. The first one addressed the wide-angle issue in what we think is a very well-sorted package, while the second finally offers both the aperture and focal length suitable for close-up shallow depth-of-field portraiture. We are excited about both these new lenses along with the XF 23mm f/1.4 R and those soon to come.

Alas, they have not yet reached our hands, so the reviews will have to wait a little longer. On the positive side, Fujifilm has decided to treat us with some eye-candy from the widest lens currently available for the X-system. If you’ve been holding back your pre-order fearing it might not be as good a performer as one might hope, these official full resolution image samples should help you with your choice. Images are taken at various focal lengths and aperture values. If they are to be trusted, the XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS really does perform admirably. Clicking on the images will take you to the full-resolution (several megabytes) file on Fujifilm’s website. The image files also contain EXIF information.

3) What We Think

The first thing that strikes me is that these images are actually rather.. pleasant. They are well exposed with no sloppy composition choices or any any obvious mistakes made by the photographer himself. I’ve seen a lot of image samples officially introduced to represent their lenses by Nikon and Canon that were not half as good – some were not focused properly, others were simply nasty to look at. Not to say that Fujifilm gave us some truly artistic work to evaluate – no. Nor should they have. But these images do the lens justice, they do not undermine it, I think.

Secondly, I found the performance to be very, very good, but it is still a question just how much these images can be trusted. Naturally, we will know much more about the performance and character of this lens as soon as we review it. Until then, what are your thoughts? Does the lens seem better or worse that you hoped?

Related articles:

About Romanas Naryškin

A student and a wedding photographer with a passion for cinematography and writing. You'll see me buying film even when there's no food in the fridge. Follow me on Google+, Facebook or visit my wedding photography website to see some of my work.

Reader Interactions

Comments

I’ve always been a Nikon user, having the opportunity to afford some of the very best lenses out there, yet it’s a long time I’m waiting for something more compact and I’ve never been 100% persuaded by the V2, although I might like it. Fuji and Olympus caught my attention much more in these two past years and I discovered myself thinking of switching more and more times. This is another nail on the coffin as you say. Both the 10-24 and the upcoming 16-55 are of great interest for me. I still have to figure how much they will be priced here in Italy..

I agree … the 16-55 in particular. I have several pro friends who have or almost have transitioned from their pro dSLRs to the Fuji X system, and are very happy. The X doesn’t do AF on action as well yet, so it depends on what you shoot. One pal says he’s done 20X30s for clients and they were stunning. I am watching this closely! I will probably get the X100s first, to get my feet wet.

Similar to Dino I was a Nikon user until recently and am now half way through selling off my D300 system. I purchased the X-E2 with the kit 18-55 and so far so good. I like the combination of quality, features, and weight/size. I am looking to complement the system and was considering the 14mm prime or this zoom. As I will be doing a fair amount of travel maybe I should get the 10-24 – more flexibility than the 14mm but more weight and size. decisions!

It weighs 14oz, only 2oz or so more than the kit lens….while it’s heavy, comparatively it’s not so heavy compared to the kit….I’m thinking of going with the 10-24mm and a 35mm 1.4 for mostly landscape photography.

Since I last posted much has happened. I have sold my D800 and bought a X-T1 which has had to go back to Fuji as it has the light leak problem! I now have the X-E2, X-T1, 2×18-55mm, 18mm, 60mm and 55-200mm lenses. Swapping full frame for APS-C may seem a rash thing to do, however the lightness of the Fuji’s added to the absolutely stunning image quality has changed my approach to photography. I will buy the 10-24mm and 35mm and my kit will almost be complete. I am hoping Fuji turn my X-T1 around quickly.

I am remaining my D7100 + long lenses for wildlife as mirrorless has a long way to go in that department.

My decision was helped when I started using my 16-35mm on my Nikon D7100 and found I had image quality in almost all respects equal to my D800. In fact I ended up naming my D7100 my D800E lite! This gave me great flexibility as it can, if I wish, use my D7100 for landscape photography as the 16-35mm gives me 24-53mm on DX, my favourite focal lengths for landscapes. It remains, however, coupled mostly to my 300mm f4 for wildlife.

To be honest if I ever do return to FX, it wouldn’t be with the D800 anyway, I’d go for the D610. I’ve used a friends copy and found that I had trouble differentiating the camera from the D800.

Back to Fuji though. The reason I bought the X-E2 was to explore lightweight options, once I had done so I was smitten. The thought of my X-T1 with the 10-24mm makes me happy as my neck will no longer suffer the weight of the D800 and a pro lens, but hopefully return images of which I am very proud. My current lenses do that now.

Thanks for the photos. The lens does have potential, no doubt. It’d be nice to know, if Fujifilm provides that or if you’ll be able to measure, the Modulation Transfer Function, or MTF, of the lens at two typical spatial frequencies (like 10 & 30 l/mm, say) and across the sensor.

The Fujinon lens roadmap that you published a few days ago looks indeed interesting. The main thing lacking, in my opinion, is a long telephoto or telezoom. An unspecified one is expected for 2015, as I remember, which provides some hope once we know more about it.

Hi all. Here’s a list of questions for those of you kind enough to take the time to consider.

Qs re: Switching from dSLRS to the X, for a pro shooter or serious amateur

1 – I’ve shot dSLRs for 35+ years, 25+ of them as a pro photojournalist. I am so used to them it’s like an extension of my hand and eye … seeing through the lens (or rangefinder in the case of Leicas). How long does it take to get used to using an EVF, and what are the discomforts or negatives?

2 – Transition time to reach the point where you’re not fumbling with the camera (yes, the more you use it the faster it happens, of course)? What are the benefits of the EVF that aren’t quite so obvious?

3- ISO sensitivity: It’s hard to beat my D800 (only the D4 can do that) in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range. How does the X series do at 1600/3200 in comparison to the D800/5D3? I try to stay in that range, tops, if I can. I do like to be able to shoot in low, difficult light if necessary, and seem to.

4 – Long lens work? I shoot wildlife sometimes, for fun, though my longest lens now is a 300 which I used on a DX body. How well does the AF work on the X series using long teles? I’d love a 300/2.8 or 500/4 for the SLRs, but that isn’t going to happen soon, so maybe I live with that and go X!

5 – Landscape work: Is the 14mm wide enough?

6- Action shooting? I know it’s too much to expect that the X can do AF on real action (sports) as well as the dSLRs, but does it do reasonably well?

7 – TTL Flash: Doing PJ/docu work, I sometimes use some off-camera fill on the go when the available is too bad. What are the TTL speedlight options for the X, and are they good? My Nikons are dead-on for TTL exposure … brilliant.

8 – Ruggedness? How do they hold up? I am looking forward to a weatherproofed X. I don’t abuse my gear, but I like to be able to shoot in all conditions, and live i the PacNW.

9 – Anything else I didn’t think of, for those of you have transitioned from SLRs to the X?

My pro friend, who is transitioning to the X, says:

1) It took me a good 3 weeks to a month to get really comfortable with the camera. Like you DSLRs are easy. I forced myself to use it as much as possible so I wouldn’t just go back to the ease of the DSLR.

2) See above, the camera is now very comfortable to me and with the latest firmware and the speed of the X-E2 with face detection it’s really handy and works well. The EVF has a built in level which I miss terribly when I shoot DSLR. The ability to see how the final image will look IN REAL TIME is a distinct advantage to EVF. Also when you go manual focus you can zoom in on the focus point and really NAIL critical focus. You can get really used to those three features.

3) ISO rocks at high ISO. 6400 is no problem with these cameras. I put them better than my 5d classic, probably better than my 5dm2 and perhaps close to the 5dm3 (guessing). But NO problems with it at high ISOs at all.

4) Long lens and AF is still the weakest link in this system. So here’s my solution. I keep one DSLR with a 70-200 f4L IS zoom, 85 1.8 and 501.2L for when I need them. (I’ll rent if I think I need a 6d, 5dm3 and faster zooms). The 5d comes in at all of $550, the 70-200 f4L IS used is $1k so I don’t have a ton invested in DSLR gear now. The 85 is dirt cheap ($300) and the 50 1.2L is about $1200 used. As the X series evolves I would consider selling the 85 and the 50 and just keeping the 5d and 70-200 to shoot soccer and kids in action to go along with my X cams.

5). For me 24mm on a FF is as wide as I really like to go, so the 14 would be a 21 equivalent…there’s always the 12mm Zeiss Touit which is superb and the new f4 wide zoom will probably be superb (Fuji lens).

6) Not great on action, see #4 above. BUT, they continue to evolve and upgrade…with the X-E2 it is much faster and the ability to move the focus points in C mode to all of the focus points and not just the center point is a good thing. It’s not DSLR yet, but it might be in time. I’m pretty impressed by the improvements in the cameras in just two years. We’ve had the benefit of 30+ years of R&D on the DSLR and the focus and so it is much more evolved and mature but I actually think the mirror less cameras are making progress faster relatively speaking.

7) Haven’t tried the TTL flashes for them. I tend to use manual flash with them. Bradley Hanson might be able to contribute since he has the Fuji strobes.

8) Well, it’s not an F2 and a motor and with rain it may be more of a concern for you in the NW than me down here in sunny SoCal. I look at them as having a useful life of one year to two years at most. And that’s okay because they are evolving so quickly and I want the improvements. And it’s so nice that I don’t have to spend $3500 to get the latest and greatest model. I’m upgrading to the X-E2 by selling an X-E1 that I have had since summer. I have used it, made money with it and enjoyed it for six months and it will have cost me about $350 bucks to use it over that time.

9) Get it and go out and shoot. You will love it once you get used to it. It has a unique rhythm and feel but totally learnable.

1. Me too. Easy to use EVF. Negatives used to be lag time. I prefer the Fuji X-Pro 1 OVF/EVF option. But the EVF on the newer Fuji camera has improved. 2. XE-2 is an improvement to X-E1, and I’m sure the X-T1 will be a tad better too, plus weather sealing of body, not so much lenses. 3. ISO is subjective. I think ISO 3200 is borderline. Yes, it can go higher, but I’d apply some noise reduction. I notice the files starting to smudge and pixelate at higher ISOs. 4. I agree. Long lenses are cumbersome and not so hot with these cameras. Nikon & Canon have that beat along with action. 5. Some people go wider with other lenses and an adapter. 6.Doesn’t compare to Nikon or Canon, no matter what people claim. It misses focus sometimes. The Olympus OMD is better for action if you’re going mirror less, but the 4/3rd is not as nice as APS-C, no matter WHAT people tell you. 7. Check out Zack Arias’ website for use of TTL. Go ask him. I’m not into being a strobist. But that’s me. Go ask a strobist. 8. Even the other X series cameras hold up pretty good. A Fuji user I know dropped his X-Pro 1 several times and it still works. As for weather sealing, the X-E1, X-E2 don’t have it, but I heard from other Fuji users that the cameras survive okay as long as you don’t submit them to downpours. 9. D-SLR is MUCH faster in response and the lenses are numerous compared to the newer market of mirror less. Yes, people buy Fuji and other brands for the smaller size, but there is still a compromise. With that said, there are many out there who favor the smaller size and weight with their pro work. They manage. It all depends on the type of photography you do for a living or for fun. Sports and Wildlife, you may want to hang onto that Nikon D800, D4 camera. Nothing compares. (Well, the Sigma DP Merrill cameras are great for landscapes and rival the Nikon D800, but not without many quirks and annoyances.)

They look very promising. I bought my X-E2 + 18-55mm about 6 weeks ago and have just added the 55-200mm. I already have a Nikon D800 and D7100, but the Fuji is just so different and I am still to get landscape photography perfected. I use RAF + jpeg and am slowly coming to terms with how different the images look straight out of camera compared to my Nikon’s.

I am really keen on the 10-24mm lens, although it’s expensive, but only about as expensive as my excellent Nikon 16-35mm f4. The images look very promising, so role on the launch and seeing the results. I am so pleased I bought the X-E2, the quality is superb, both in terms of camera build and image quality.

Martin: no more expensive than Nikon quality v quality. I would argue in build quality Fuji have the edge.

I am confused about adapters. There are many available, including the Metabones, but I am struggling to understand which is best. The Metabones makes claims which frankly I don’t believe such as the ability to reduce the stops of light entering the lens! Then there’s Fotodiox and Novoflex.

It would be great if Photography Life could do a full review of these adapters. I Hope Nasim and Romanas are reading this!

Yes Richard I would agree the price/quality point with you. Seems to me the Fuji zoom lens are not to be compared to the Nikon kit zoom lens. And yes I’m not clear on the adapters – I am considering keeping my Nikon 10.5 to use with an adapter as a far cheaper solution than the 14mm I was thinking of buying. But if I buy the 10-24 that’s moot.

If so, which would you buy? I’ve looked at the Fotodiox, Novoflex and Metabones and somehow favour the Novoflex. This because I have difficulty believing the Metabones hype and the Fotodiox seems really too cheap. Any ideas?

Right now I am not sure if I’ll go adaptor or not. I’m a little reticent about paying good money for an adaptor rather than just selling my 10.5 and paying a not too unreasonable net difference for the 14mm or 10-24.

As a real beginning rookie in real digital photography (almost 12 years ‘Point n Shoot’ but only 8 months D7100), I have to say the first 6 images above are really annoying, though my beef isn’t with the photographer nor the subjects. It really seems as if the camera/lens is over-correcting for distortions. Everything seems, well, not quite right. Horizontal roof lines that point into the water. Straight lines that should be curved, curved lines that should be straight. But these are normal, right? Only these pics look like they have been “auto corrected” by a machine, not by a discerning human eye. I just find those first 6 pics physically hard on my eyes. Especially the first one. Am I the only one sees them this way?

Steve, what you are seeing is wide-angle lens distortion, and not the barrel distortion that sometimes goes with it. You are right, the lens does seem to be remarkably corrected for barrel distortion – either by design as Fuji claims to attempt, or by software trickery – but the rest of it is just a natural result of a lens that is shot at an equivalent focal length of 15mm. Which is very, very wide. Very wide. So, no, I personally do not see anything weird about the images. Your point-and-shoot surely did not have such a wide-angle lens. Did you ever use a 10mm lens on your D7100?

Thanks for the explanation, Romanas, although you may well have talked me out of ever buying a wide, wide, wide angle lens! I’m currently in the process of looking for a multi-purpose zoom lens. I’m thinking buying an FX (instead of DX) lens to give me some instant bonus reach. 1.3x +1.5x = :-) My kit 18 – 105 just doesn’t work for me. 28 – 300mm to 70 – 300mm is the target but they each have issues.

Interestingly, I bought the Nikon 14-24mm when I had my D300 and sold it when I bought my D700 in favour of the 16-35mm f4. Two reasons, firstly it wouldn’t take filters apart from the overpriced Lee kit, but importantly it was just too wide on FX for me. Great for architectural in tight locations, but too wide for landscapes. My perfect widest focal length for landscapes is 24mm, but sometimes need wider. This new 10-24mm would fit in well.

However for those who want 15mm constantly, there’s always the Samyang 10mm and if 21mm is wide enough then the Fujinon 14mm. Choices, choices eh.

Richard, Landscapes are a strange animal. Fortunately, panoramas are easily made in Photoshop and work great for websites (Nat. Geo. not so much). My old Canon film SLR had a phenomenal 35 – 105mm (w/macro) but it couldn’t cover a wide landscape (or the inside of the Library of Parliament in Ottawa – where the shutter rang out at what seemed like 110 db!). I’ll definitely consider your – 24mm point in choosing a smaller mate to a new bigger zoom but will likely be in DX for the shorter lens.

Point n shoots you have used previously tend not to go this wide. In terms of the common 35mm film (FX) equivalent they seldom go wider than 24 – 25 mmm and many only go to 28mm. This 10mm on Fuji APSC sensor gives equivalent field of view of a 15mm and will take in approximately 130 degrees horizontal angle of view, meaning that if you stand in the corner of a room and shoot at the opposite corner, the pics will easily include all 4 walls.

With ultra wide lenses, the effects of perspective are magnified, in the same way that a long tele lens tends to flatten (reduce) natural perspective. To minimise these effects (walls curving inwards and so on) you can ensure the camera is properly vertical/horizontal and with buildings, it is aimed perpendicular to the flat planes of the structure…but this may not always suit the look that the photographer is going for.

It is not so much optical distortion due to the lens as a consequence of cramming a much wider field of view into a normal one.

Thanks for the further info. I have yet another question: Is there some magical point (in mm) at which the lens captures maximum image but there is no quality trade-off – ie: a need for distortion correction?

Steve, this sort of distortion that we explained is not a quality trade-off, it is a characteristic of a wide-angle lens similarly to how compression is a characteristic of a telephoto lens. It is not to be fixed somehow, but to used creatively. And if you do not like it, you simply do not like the look of a wide-angle lens. If you want the most neutral look similar to that of our eyesight, try a 35mm or 50mm lens, they sit in the gap between what is considered wide-angle and telephoto.

If you view the photo from the correct distance, this “distortion” will not be apparent. The correct distance is the focal length of the lens multiplied by the magnification. Example: for a 21 mm lens used on a full frame camera (about 1 X 1.5 inch), an 8 X 12 inch print should be viewed at 21 mm X 8 = 168 mm (6.6 inches). We usually would view that size print from a greater distance, which is what makes it look odd.

The “magical point” does not exist really….it is a sliding scale. For practical purposes consider it as 24mm equivalent. The thing is, when shooting natural subjects such as landscapes including irregularly shaped scenery and plants, the “distortion” is very much less obvious and you can get very attractive results even if the photo does not look exactly like the way that your eyesight perceived the scene when you were there. When you shoot architecture though, the curving of lines that you know to be straight can be quite discomforting.

I do a lot of my landscape photography in mountainous environments and I have a basic rule of thumb for switching to an ultra-wide lens : -If the scene is laid out in front of you and does not extend to your peripheral vision – don’t switch, no need to go much wider than 24mm (16mm on APSC) -If the scene is surrounding you and you feel like you are inside it – then switch to ultra-wide.

Examples where I have had fun with ultra-wide lenses : dramatic skies with extensive cloud formations overhead, under or close to certain types of trees (not tall straight ones, they get distorted), halfway up a rock climb or steep mountain pass, mountain vistas taken from cliff edges, surrounded by tall peaks towering above, deep 3-dimensional scenery etc.

Thanks everybody, you’ve given me a load of information with which I’ll try to make the right decisions during future purchases and shooting. I’ve missed many important (to me) indoor and outdoor shots due to insufficient angle lenses. I recently saw a used Nikon 16 – 85mm for ~$260 that I passed on because I was focused on only a big zoom at the time. As Photography Life rates that lens pretty highly, I think I’ll head back to the store with my camera for a closer look – I hope the lens is still there.

Does anyone know if Fuji will produce more lenses with true manual focus? As I understand it, the 14mm has a direct coupled focus ring, but the other lenses are all focus-by-wire, which I think I would find frustrating.

All the mirrorless camera systems are lacking 3 types of (admittedly specialist) lenses that I’d like to see: 1) long focal length macro, such as an equivalent to 200mm f/4 (135mm f/2.8 on fuji, maybe Sigma will come out with an X-mount version of their 150). 2) tilt/shift lens at 24mm equivalent (16mm f/2.8 or something like that) Does anyone know if any software can correct distortion & vignetting on a lens that has been tilted or shifted? The pattern will no longer be a centered circle. 3) at least one long lens for wildlife — minimum 300mm f/4 equivalent (200mm f/2.8). This is assuming they improve continuous AF to the point that it would work well. How good is the continuous AF on the XE-2?

All I can say is when the X-Pro 2 is ever released I’ll be on the pre-order list promptly along with this 58mm and the 10-24mm. Fuji is doing a bang up job with these cameras and one more round of tweaking small things like AF performance, etc and this will be a product I’ll really want to have! Just wish they could get a 1/250th flash sync.

The railway shot is really nice. It demonstrates every bit of performance of this lens.

– Distortion and perspective is nicely controlled. Every vertical and horizontal line is correct. – Flare and ghost : With the Sun in the frame, there is no flare and ghost. I used to own Pana 7-14 and suffered from purple bubbles and fringe. – Micro contrast and details of the highlight zone is really pleasing.

I made very similar observations. And the two last points seem to be valid. The first one *might* be the result of software playing its part, although Fujifilm claims to optimize lenses optically, not through software.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.